WSP07440 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 ~- forgone which, in effect, would reduce the annual water supply ava~- able to irrigation by 11,000 acre-feet annually resulting in an estl- mated supply of 108,400 acre-feet. Our reevaluation shows that the estimated total construction cost (October 1965 price levels) of the Narrows Unit would increase to $62,520,000. Interest during construction would add $4,918,600, mak- ing the total investment cost $67,438,000 for the alternative plan as compared to $66,738,600 in the regional director's report. OperatlOn, maintenance, and replacement costs would increase from $216,500 to $286,500 annuaJIy. The annual costs of the unit for economic analysis, which includes the annual equivalent of the net project investment and annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs, would increase from $2,275,200 to $2,368,200. The economic and financial aspects of the alternative plan are as follows: ' Functiom Irrigation: ])irect___________________________________________________ IndHect______~__________________________________________ Savings in a.M. & R____________nn______________________ Total_________________________________________________ Flood control_ _ _ __ __ ____ ____~_ __ __ __ ________ _____ _ __ _ ____~ ___ Fish and wildlife enhancement: N ational_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Local_________________________________________________-- To~________________________________________~________ Recreation (adjusted for time and rate of development)___________ AnnucUbenefit $1,254,500 190,900 16,000 1,461, 400 961, 000 51,000 376,700 427,700 875,200 Total net benefits__n___________________________~_______ 3,725,300 Direct net benefits______________________________________ 3,534,400 The benefit-cost ratio for the modified plan, based on the foregoing, is 1.57 to 1 for total benefits and 1.49 to 1 for direct benefits ouly. The estimated costs of the modified plan have been allocated as follows: Function Construction <0'" Interest during construction T"'" IrrigatiOIl____n_________n_______________________________________ Flood conlroL____________________________n________________..____ ~~~~~fli~enL-----------------------n----n------~---m Natiollal._.____n____________h______n~.___~_____h_____~n__ locaL_.___~_n_._____n__n_______________________________h Recreation______n______________hh__h...n.___________________ $23,970,000 19,150,300 139.000 886,300 5,860,900 12,513,500 62,520,000 $1,983,700 1,591,100 11,600 55,100 422,200 854,900 4,918,600 TotaL___h__h________.________~______________n_nn_____ $25,953,700 W,741,400 150,600 941,400 6,283,100 13,368,400 67,438,600 All of the construction costs aJlocated to irrigation ($23,970,000) would be reimbursable without interest within 50 years. Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement expenses allocated to irrigation are $20,100. All of these costs would be repaid from annual ad valorem tax revenues estimated at $17,000, annual service charges from Jackson Lake Reservoir interests ($10,000), and a fixed annual obligation ($472,500) to return the irrigation costs within 50 years, 9 The contractual arrangements -may include provision for variable annual repayment reflecting both economic and overall water supply conditions. As provided in the Federal Water Project Recreation Aot, a non- Federal public body would be responsible for the repayment with interest of $691,300, which represents one-half of separable costs aJlocated to fish and wildlife enhancement and. includes $24,900 interest during construction, and would bear all of the separable annual operation and maintenance costs estimated at $30,100. Re- imbursable costs allocated. to recreation for which it would be respon- sible total $1,457,300, which includes $29,500 interest during construc- tion. Separable operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $204,200. We anticipate the State of Colorado will indicate in writing its intent to agree, as required by the act, to bear these costs and to administer the land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. Such an agreement would be a prerequisite to commence- ment of construction of the: unit. The remaining costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement ($6,080,800), recreation ($11,085,700), flood control ($19,150,300), and the Federal share of road relocation costs for highway improve- ment ($139,000) total $36,455,800 and would be nonreimbursable as provided by law. Nonreimbursable annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs totel $32,100, which was allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement ($12,900), recreation ($9,900), and flood control ($9,300) . A table comparing the foregoing analysis of the alternative plan of development for the Narrows unit With the analysis presented in the regional director's report of January 1967, which was summarized earlier in this proposed report, is attached. Local interest in water resource development has been high ill the unit area from the time of settlement. The Lower South Platte Water ConServancy District was formed on May 6, 1964, to assume the responsibility for repayment of projeot costs following authorizllr tion of the unit. The conservancy district has demonstrated interest in end support for the unit. That support ha.s intensified since the June 1965 flood with many requests for early construction of the unit. The plan is also strongly supported by the Oolorado Water Conservllr tion Board, other State agencies, and by communities and service or@nizations in the area. The proposed Narrows unit represents a desirable and urgently needed. water resource development that would strengthen the econ- omy of the aree, the State, and the Nation. Since either the plan set forth in the attached regional director's report and summarized in this report or the alternative plan described herein is engineeringly feasible and economicaJIy justified and would result in a desirable develop- ment, I recommend that the State of Colorado be given the oppor- tunity to submit its views and recommendations concerning the plan that offers the degree of development most consistent with the needs end desires of the State. I therefore recommend that you approve and adopt this report as your proposed report on the Narrows Unit, Missouri River Basin proj ect, Colorado, and that you authorize me in your behalf to trans-